[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10204-H10210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENSURING THAT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OF PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY OF
CHINA ARE MONITORED
Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Speaker, as the designee of the chairman of the
Committee on International Relations, pursuant to House Resolution 302,
I call up the bill (H.R. 2647) to ensure that commercial activities of
the People's Liberation Army of China or any Communist Chinese military
company in the United States are monitored and are subject to the
authorities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of H.R. 2647 is as follows:
[[Page H10205]]
H.R. 2647
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The People's Liberation Army is the principal
instrument of repression within the People's Republic of
China, responsible for occupying Tibet since 1950, massacring
hundreds of students and demonstrators for democracy in
Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989, and running the Laogai
(``reform through labor'') slave labor camps.
(2) The People's Liberation Army is engaged in a massive
military buildup, which has involved a doubling since 1992 of
announced official figures for military spending by the
People's Republic of China.
(3) The People's Liberation Army is engaging in a major
ballistic missile modernization program which could undermine
peace and stability in East Asia, including 2 new
intercontinental missile programs, 1 submarine-launched
missile program, a new class of compact but long-range cruise
missiles, and an upgrading of medium-and short-range
ballistic missiles.
(4) The People's Liberation Army is working to coproduce
the SU-27 fighter with Russia, and is in the process of
purchasing several substantial weapons systems from Russia,
including the 633 model of the Kilo-class submarine and the
SS-N-22 Sunburn missile system specifically designed to
incapacitate United States aircraft carriers and Aegis
cruisers.
(5) The People's Liberation Army has carried out acts of
aggression in the South China Sea, including the February
1995 seizure of the Mischief Reef in the Spratley Islands,
which is claimed by the Philippines.
(6) On July 1995 and in March 1996, the People's Liberation
Army conducted missile tests to intimidate Taiwan when Taiwan
held historic free elections, and those tests effectively
blockaded Taiwan's 2 principal ports of Keelung and
Kaohsiung.
(7) The People's Liberation Army has contributed to the
proliferation of technologies relevant to the refinement of
weapons-grade nuclear material, including transferring ring
magnets to Pakistan.
(8) The People's Liberation Army and associated defense
companies have provided ballistic missile components, cruise
missiles, and chemical weapons ingredients to Iran, a country
that the executive branch has repeatedly reported to Congress
is the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world.
(9) In May 1996, United States authorities caught the
People's Liberation Army enterprise Poly Technologies and the
civilian defense industrial company Norinco attempting to
smuggle 2,000 AK-47s into Oakland, California, and offering
to sell urban gangs shoulder-held missile launchers capable
of ``taking out a 747'' ( which the affidavit of the United
States Customs Service of May 21, 1996, indicated that the
representative of Poly Technologies and Norinco claimed), and
Communist Chinese authorities punished only 4 low-level arms
merchants by sentencing them on May 17, 1997, to brief prison
terms.
(10) The People's Liberation Army contributes to the
People's Republic of China's failure to meet the standards
the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding with the United States
on intellectual property rights by running factories which
pirate videos, compact discs, and computer software that are
products of the United States.
(11) The People's Liberation Army contributes to the
People's Republic of China's failing to meet the standards of
the February 1997 Memorandum of Understanding with the United
States on textiles by operating enterprises engaged in the
transshipment of textile products to the United States
through third countries.
(12) The estimated $2 billion to $3 billion in annual
earnings of People's Liberation Army enterprises subsidize
the expansion and activities of the People's Liberation Army
described in this subsection.
(13) The commercial activities of the People's Liberation
Army are frequently conducted on noncommercial terms, or for
noncommercial purposes such as military or foreign policy
considerations.
SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF AUTHORITIES UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL
EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS ACT TO CHINESE
MILITARY COMPANIES.
(a) Determination of Communist Chinese Military
Companies.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), not
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Attorney General, the Director of Central Intelligence, and
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall
compile a list of persons who are Communist Chinese military
companies and who are operating directly or indirectly the
United States or any of its territories and possessions, and
shall publish the list of such persons in the Federal
Register. On an ongoing basis, the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of
Central Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, shall make additions or deletions to the
list based on the latest information available.
(2) Communist chinese military company.--For purposes of
making the determination required by paragraph (1), the term
``Communist Chinese military company''--
(A) means a person that is--
(i) engaged in providing commercial services,
manufacturing, producing, or exporting, and
(ii) owned or controlled by the People's Liberation Army,
and
(B) includes, but is not limited to, any person identified
in the United States Defense Intelligence Agency publication
numbered VP-1920-271-90, dated September 1990, or PC-1921-57-
95, dated October 1995, and any update of such reports for
the purposes of this Act.
(b) Presidential Authority.--
(1) Authority.--The President may exercise the authorities
set forth in section 203(a) of the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702(a)) with respect to any
commercial activity in the United States by a Communist
Chinese military company (except with respect to authorities
relating to importation), without regard to section 202 of
that Act.
(2) Penalties.--The penalties set forth in section 206 of
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1705) shall apply to violations of any license, order, or
regulation issued under paragraph (1).
SEC. 3. DEFINITION.
For purposes of this Act, the term ``People's Liberation
Army'' means the land, naval, and air military services, the
police, and the intelligence services of the Communist
Government of the People's Republic of China, and any member
of any such service or of such police.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 302, the
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] and the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Hamilton] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
General Leave
Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Speaker, today the House is considering H.R. 2647,
legislation I have introduced to call attention to U.S. commercial
activities of the People's Liberation Army, better known as the PLA, of
China and give the President expanded authority to take action against
PLA-owned enterprises doing business in the United States.
It has been well-documented that China's military-owned enterprises
have been directly involved in the international proliferation of
nuclear and chemical weapons technologies and of missiles and missile
technologies. Recent revelations include information about the sale of
ring magnets and specialized high temperature industrial furnaces, used
in constructing nuclear weapons, to Pakistan; technical support for
Iran's nuclear program; and missile technology sales to Iran, Syria,
and Pakistan. The profits from these sales are piled back into the
modernization of the PLA and fund such aggressive activities as the
missile tests conducted off Taiwan in advance of the 1996 elections
there and the PLA's seizure of contested islands in the South China
Sea.
What many Americans do not know is that the Chinese military also
operates many enterprises that deal in nonmilitary commodities, and
that they profit handsomely from their activities in the United States.
A report released earlier this year indicated that vast quantities of
goods as varied as rattan products, toys, ski gloves, garlic, iron
weight sets, men's pants, car radiators, glassware, pollock fillets,
swimsuits, and much more are being sold to U.S. consumers by PLA-owned
firms.
This chart that I have here will give Members an example. All those
that are in the peach color are companies that have been documented by
our Defense Intelligence Agency as being directly owned by the People's
Liberation Army. Those in the peach color are the ones that would be
affected by this legislation. The ones to the other side, in the other
color, are their defense industrial base. Some of them have indirect
connections also, but any Members who are interested today might want
to come up and look at this chart. They would be amazed at the
companies listed here.
[[Page H10206]]
H.R. 2647 would do two things. First, it would require the Secretary
of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of
Central Intelligence, and the Director of the FBI, to maintain a
current list of Chinese military firms operating directly or indirectly
in the United States. This list, consisting strictly of PLA-owned
companies, would be updated regularly in the Federal register.
Second, it would give the President enhanced authority under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, better known as IEEPA, to
take action against Chinese military-owned firms if circumstances
warrant, including freezing their assets or otherwise regulating these
firms' activities.
Thus, if a PLA-owned firm is found to be shipping missile guidance
components to a rogue state like Iran, the President would have the
authority to take immediate action against a United States subsidiary
of that firm which might, for example, be selling sporting goods here
in the United States.
I should note that this bill would not require the President to take
action under IEEPA; it would only enhance his ability to do so.
I believe that American consumers ought to know whether the products
they are buying, including things like toys, sweaters, and porcelain
they might purchase for the upcoming holidays, are supporting the
People's Liberation Army and the kind of activities I have identified.
This legislation will help do that. It is needed both to shed light
on the PLA's activities in the United States and to ensure that the
President has the latitude he needs to take appropriate actions when
evidence of wrongdoing arises. I hope my colleagues will support this
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I rise in opposition to the bill.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to increase, I think, the
likelihood that United States sanctions against companies owned by the
Chinese military will be applied. The bill's findings make a number of
assertions about objectionable conduct by the People's Liberation Army.
I think there is broad agreement with regard to the accuracy of those
assertions.
The findings also describe a number of Chinese military commercial
activities that are contrary to United States interests, or at least
said to be contrary to United States interests, or in violation of
Chinese Government commitments. The bill requires the Secretary of
Defense to maintain a list of Chinese military companies operating in
the United States, and it authorizes but it does not require the
President to impose the sanctions provided for under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, the act we generally refer to by the
name IEEPA, even if that statute's threat standard has not been met.
I really oppose the bill for two reasons. First of all, the bill
hands the President of the United States an extraordinary amount of
authority. Currently the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,
or IEEPA, authorizes the President to impose a wide array of sanctions
in response to a foreign threat to the United States national security,
foreign policy or economic interests. Presidents have used that
authority frequently in the past. Under this bill, the President would
be free to impose IEEPA sanctions on a Chinese military company without
declaring a national emergency, or even determining that the company in
question posed any threat to United States public safety or national
security.
In other words, the bill provides no clear standards for invoking
IEEPA sanctions. The bill establishes no threat standard for triggering
the sanctions. The bill offers no congressional guidance to the
President concerning the conduct that would justify sanctions. So far
as I am aware, no existing sanctions law, and we have a number of them
on the books today, offers the President anywhere near this kind of
open-ended authority to impose sanctions. And so the bill has important
implications beyond United States-China relations. It sets a precedent,
and some view perhaps an alarming precedent, with respect to
the separation of powers; it represents an extraordinary giveaway by
the Congress of congressional authority to the executive to set the
parameters of U.S. foreign and trade policy. I am aware, of course,
that my colleagues will not be much persuaded by this argument, but I
do find myself increasingly concerned about this propensity on the part
of Members of the Congress and this institution to transfer authority
to the President of the United States, and in this case not to give him
any guidelines, not to give him any guidance, not to put any restraint
or restrictions on the manner in which he uses that power. I can almost
assure that sometime in the future, we in this body will be objecting
very strongly to the manner in which some President, a future
President, will have exercised authority under this bill, and we will
complain that he has abused authority when in fact he will not have
abused authority because there are not any guidelines here. That is one
objection that I have to the bill.
A second objection is that I think the bill involves the danger that
it poses to sensitive intelligence information. The requirement to
publish a list of Chinese military companies operating directly or
indirectly in the United States I am told can easily jeopardize
sensitive sources. This requirement of disclosure could release
classified information that should be protected, and that information
could relate to sources and methods in the intelligence community. I do
not think it is wise for us to take action that will only make it more
difficult to collect vital intelligence on Chinese commercial interests
in this country. I understand that the Chinese do a lot of things that
we do not like, and I agree with much of what has been said with regard
to their conduct, but I do not think we have looked at this legislation
carefully enough, we have not explained why the President needs any new
authority to protect public safety or national security from the
Chinese military. He already has very extensive authority to do that. I
do not think the sponsors of the bill have adequately explained why we
should take a step that has fairly serious implications for the balance
of constitutional powers, and I do not believe the sponsors of the bill
have told us how they would reconcile the need to protect sensitive
intelligence sources with the requirement for publishing a list of
companies associated with the Chinese military.
Madam Speaker, I do not see any overriding reason to pass this bill,
although I certainly understand the concerns that the sponsors of the
bill have about Chinese military enterprises operating in this country
and in other areas of the world.
{time} 1600
But because of the two reasons that I have stated, I do urge Members
to oppose the bill. I might say that the administration likewise
opposes the bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to stress again that this bill does not require the
President to do anything, it just gives him the flexibility to do so.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Gilman], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International
Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for
yielding this time to me.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of this
measure, a bill introduced by the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs.
Fowler] that would deny normal commercial status to the Chinese
People's Liberation Army, whose enterprises subsidize China's military
spending, and who promote arms proliferation activities from Iran to
the streets of San Francisco.
This critically important legislation is needed to monitor and
restrict the long arm of those commercial enterprises in Asia and in
the United States whose activities have been directly implicated in the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in arms smuggling,
economic espionage, use of forced labor, piracy of intellectual
property and misappropriation of military-sensitive technology.
[[Page H10207]]
Its provisions would require the U.S. Secretary of Defense, the
Attorney General and our Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to publish a list of Chinese
military companies that are operating in the United States, and would
authorize the President to monitor, to restrict, and seize the assets
of those companies.
As an original cosponsor of this measure, along with a number of my
colleagues, including the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
National Security, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], I
would remind my colleagues that the Chinese People's Liberation Army is
the main instrument of repression within China responsible for
occupying Tibet since 1950, massacring hundreds of student
demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in June of 1989, and running the
Laogai slave labor camps.
The PLA, assisted by its money-making commercial enterprises, is
engaged in a massive military buildup with most of the increase in off-
budget items. Our arms control agency has estimated that its actual
military spending in 1994 was more than nine times its announced
budget.
We can and must ensure that the commercial enterprises supporting
this massive military buildup be subjected to close scrutiny by our
intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and we urge the President to
use his existing authorities to restrict or ban their activities in the
United States to the extent they represent a national security threat
to our interests.
This measure provides the authority for the President to seize the
assets of Chinese companies listed in section 2(a) of this bill. It
does not mandate, does not require any such Presidential action, but it
does serve to put teeth in this measure denying commercial status to
these Chinese companies. If the President were to abuse his authorities
under the IEEPA, we can always restrict or eliminate the authorities
provided in section 2(b) of this act.
We know that we have a problem with the Chinese military as a whole,
but perhaps for foreign policy reasons the President will not want to
declare an emergency. This measure will allow the President to act
accordingly. If this is any giveaway of authority, it is strictly
limited though to PLA companies.
Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional minute.
I just wanted to point out the process involved in this bill. I think
there were no hearings in the committee with respect to it. I am not
aware that there was any consultation between the committee and the
administration and no effort to talk with the administration about how
they viewed this bill or to adapt the language of the bill so that it
would be satisfactory to the administration.
I am not aware that the bill had any consideration in the committee,
the House Committee on International Relations. This bill was not
reported out by the committee, I do not believe. I think the bill came
out under a waiver, if I am not mistaken.
Now, I understand that there are times when steps have to be taken in
a committee to bypass normal procedures, but I must say I do not
understand why that had to occur here. This is an important matter. The
administration does have something to say on it, but I am not aware of
any process that involved them to any degree.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman of the Committee on National
Security.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for
sponsoring this initiative.
Madam Speaker, the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army
directly controls a vast empire of commercial enterprises throughout
the world. In addition, there is a parallel network of state-run
defense industries under the supervision of the Commission of Science,
Technology and Industry for National Defense. Such enterprises have
been involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, arms
smuggling, economic espionage, use of forced labor, piracy of
intellectual property and misappropriation of military-sensitive
technology.
As state-owned enterprises, PLA enterprises frequently operate on
noncommercial terms, conducting their affairs for such nonmarket
reasons as military and prestige considerations and for advancing
foreign policy concerns, and even when operating for commercial
motives, PLA profits subsidize the military establishment with off-
budget financing. According to Karl Schoenberger, writing in Fortune
magazine, off-budget military spending in 1997, including both profits
from PLA enterprises and PLA arms sales, is conservatively estimated at
$2 to $3 billion. Based on purchasing power parity, the Arms Control
and Disarmament Agency, not known for exaggerating threats, estimated
that 1994 Chinese military spending was nine times its announced
budget.
To Chinese military spending is added the problems of weapons
acquisition; for instance, fire sales from cash-strapped Russia. The
Chinese arms proliferation problem involves what China buys as well as
what it sells; is captured by its efforts to acquire the Sovremenny-
class destroyers from Russia, which are equipped with SS-N-22
supersonic antiship missiles. These Sunburn missiles were designed to
evade defenses by hugging the surface of the ocean and then popping up
to come straight down on the surface of ships. They are designed for
destroying American aircraft carriers and Aegis cruisers, especially
disturbing given our Navy's presence in the Taiwan Strait.
Instead of representing a stabilizing force in a generational
leadership transition in China, as some allege, that military
establishment is China's chief enemy of freedom at home and abroad. The
PLA is responsible for internal repression from Tibet's occupation to
the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is responsible for external
aggression from the seizure of Mischief Reef in the Spratley Islands to
the firing of missiles to intimidate Taiwan.
The Communist Chinese military does not deserve to be treated like
the world's private companies. I urge my colleagues to support this
very fine piece of legislation.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for
yielding this time to me, and first I want to commend her for her
sponsorship of this very, very important legislation and her
contribution on all of this legislation that has been before us for the
last 2 days.
Madam Speaker, again we have a bill before us that brings to light a
very serious problem with Communist China that has often been lost in
our previous debates on China. It is especially lost when listening to
the rhetoric of those who argue for the status quo called engagement
with China. As my colleagues know, that word, ``engagement,'' always
gets this country of ours in trouble and always ends up with American
soldiers in combat somewhere.
The problem is that we do not have true engagement or free trade with
this Communist government. There is a barrier between us and them, and
the barrier is the massive omnipresent Communist Chinese Government's
apparatus dominated by the People's Liberation Army.
This is no ordinary army, Madam Speaker. No, it is also a vast
commercial empire raking in profits of well over $2 billion a year,
mostly financed by either low-interest or no-interest U.S. taxpayer
dollars, 35 years in length, and sometimes with a 10-year waiver, a 10-
year grace period, that may never even get paid back, and yet they keep
doing this, Madam Speaker. They have got their fingers in everything,
let me assure my colleagues.
Madam Speaker, half of the things people are wearing around here are
probably made by firms either owned by or affiliated with the People's
Liberation Army. See this shirt I am wearing here? Used to be made up
in Troy, NY. Do my colleagues know where it is made now? It is made by
the People's
[[Page H10208]]
Liberation Army in China, and all the people that I represent are now
out of work. We used to have several thousand seamstresses and workers
up in the Hudson Valley. Today we are lucky if we have 300 left.
And what does the PLA do with these huge profits? Well, for starters
it dutifully carries out the totalitarian repression of the Chinese
people as ordered by the Communist Party. The PLA is the instrument of
terror in China. It was the PLA that rolled the tanks in Tiananmen
Square, killing a thousand people. It is the PLA that occupies Tibet.
What else does it do, Madam Speaker? Well, for starters, they fired
some missiles at Taiwan last year, and they are using their annual
double-digit budget increases in their military to gobble up weapons at
a breathtaking pace, SU-27 fighter jets, Kilo submarines like this
destroyer right here purchased from the Russian Government, armed with
a deadly anti-American SS-N-22 missile that is pictured here, that is
someday going to be used against U.S. soldiers and sailors stationed
over in the Taiwan Straits. Just name it, the PLA is buying it.
And lastly, it is, of course, the PLA that is proliferating the
endless list of deadly weapons and technology.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I commend
the gentlewoman from Florida. It is a great piece of legislation.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, there is an excellent new
book on the market. It is called Dereliction of Duty, and it talks
about what went on in the Lyndon Johnson administration, starting about
January of 1964 when he was telling the people of America that he was
not going to get our Nation involved in any war in Vietnam, and yet
behind the scenes was taking every step to do so.
{time} 1615
That is what happens when you mislead the American people. That is
what happens when you tell the American people you are doing one thing
and yet another is going on.
That is what these six bills are about. I voted for them. They sound
good; they feel good; they do absolutely nothing. This bill, I would
say to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], and you are my
friend, does absolutely nothing.
We have had two opportunities now on this floor to do something. My
friend, and I still call him my friend, although we quarrel on
occasion, Mr. Solomon, points out that the People's Army got $2 billion
in profits from goods they sold in America last year. The people of
China, the nation of China, got $40 billion because of their incredible
trade surplus with our Nation. On two occasions, I have tried to
address that. On two occasions, you people chose not to.
It is a dereliction of duty of this Congress to mislead the American
people that we are somehow getting tough with the Chinese Communists
when we are not. There is a dereliction of duty of this Congress to
pass six bills, put out press releases, go up there, talk to the
television, go out on the quad and talk to the reporters, say we are
finally getting tough with the Communists, when we are not.
The only way we are ever going to get the Chinese Communists'
attention, to get them to quit forcing abortions, to get them to quit
selling missiles to our enemies, to get them to quit putting American
businesses out of business with slave-labor-made goods, is when we hit
them in the pocketbook, and we will never hit them in the pocketbook as
long as we give them most-favored-nation status, when they get 2
percent tariffs on their products coming into America and yet we allow
them to charge us anything they want when we sell our products there.
And those tariffs can be from 30 to 40 percent, and those tariffs are
the main reason why our Nation is at a $40 billion annual trade
disadvantage with the Chinese.
I say to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], I am going to
vote for her bill. It sounds nice. But if you are really serious, if
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is really serious about
this, then let us address the trade inequity. Let us forget about the
silly rules of the House. Let us forget about jurisdictions. For once,
let us do what is right for America.
Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
[Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I find it unfortunate that my
friend, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], would speak to us
in such a condescending manner.
And I will just say this right off the bat. There have been people
that have put a lot of time and effort into this issue of human rights
and China. This Member in particular has spent years engaged in the
issue of human rights in China. And for you to stand up here and act
condescending to people who have worked so hard, like the gentlewoman
from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox],
who have worked and sweated and done their homework for months and even
years to try to get legislation to this floor, when you, as a Member
yourself, have not gone through the procedures necessary to work a
piece of legislation, is a little bit too much.
I would like to commend the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler]
and commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] in particular for
the hard work they have put into this legislation. And it is not just a
1-day thing with these people, it is not a 1-day thing with this
Congressman. We have worked for years trying to come to grips with a
challenge to the United States of America, and that challenge is
something that the public has not been able to recognize because there
are American businessmen over making profit of Communist dictatorship,
a dictatorship run by a group of thugs that threatens our national
security and threatens the well-being of the people of this country.
We have got a package of bills before us today, and we have had to
work to get them to the floor and work to perfect them, that will make
a difference.
For example, we are not just talking about the People's Liberation
Army, we are insisting that all companies that are associated with the
People's Liberation Army, that are fronts for the People's Liberation
Army, that a list be made and that it be made public, and that the
President be given the discretion, which, of course, our distinguished
ranking member on the Committee on International Relations opposes,
that the President be given the discretion to act against these
companies.
I am not afraid that the civil rights of these People's Liberation
Army companies might get stepped upon. We are talking about the biggest
abusers of human rights in the world, people who torture Christians,
who put believers in God in prison, put them in forced labor camps, use
them as slave labor to produce goods that will be sold, some of those
goods, sold right here in the United States of America.
We are trying to come to grips with this problem, we are trying to
alert the American people to it, and I, for one, deeply appreciate the
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] and especially the gentleman
from California ([Mr. Cox] and all the other people who put time and
effort into this package.
The People's Liberation Army is providing billions of dollars,
billions of dollars, of revenue, by selling products to us, to do what?
As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] stated, to build up their
armed forces in a way by selling products to us.
What will they do with these weapons? This massive buildup that we
see of the Chinese military, what will they do? Some day they may use
those weapons to kill Americans.
Well, we are taking steps today to see that we come to grips with
this incredible challenge. I, for one, am proud of the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Solomon], I am proud of the people involved in the
effort.
One last thing about this particular bill, H.R. 2647. No, it does not
do everything, but it takes a long step forward. It will alert the
American people to what companies are nothing more than fronts for the
military arm of the Chinese Communist regime, and it gives the
President authority to act if we find them stealing our technology or
acting in a way that is totally inconsistent with the security needs of
our country.
[[Page H10209]]
So I rise in strong support of this legislation and commend my fellow
colleagues who put so much time and effort into trying to do something
about it. Lyndon Johnson certainly didn't do anything about it.
[Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member
for yielding me this time, and I commend the gentlewoman from Florida
[Mrs. Fowler] for her leadership on this important issue.
I just want to return to the dialog where the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] started his remarks. I wanted to commend
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] though, too, for his
comments, because it is true, we should be doing more. But this is the
very least we should do, where we can come together and hopefully get
some action on the Senate side and put these bills on the President's
desk. This gives us a chance to demonstrate the need for this
legislation and to make a statement of our national values and concerns
in our relationship with China.
As I have said over and over, I believe we will have a brilliant
relationship with China, economically, diplomatically, culturally,
politically, and every way, but that can only happen when the Chinese
Government respects its own people, stops proliferating weapons of mass
destruction to rogue states, and plays by the rule in our trade
relationship.
I believe we should have engagement with China, but it must be
effective engagement, that makes the trade fairer, the world safer, and
people freer, and not the destructive engagement that we have now that
not only coddles dictators but extends unwarranted hospitality to them.
For example, when President Clinton toasted President Jiang Zemin, he
was toasting the leader of the Chinese military that at that very
moment was brutally occupying Tibet, continuing its proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction to rogue and unsafeguarded states,
repressing dissent in China, and a military that had in the past year
and a half threatened with missiles the election in Taiwan, a military
that had exported illegally AK-47 type rifles into the United States,
selling them at a very cheap price on the streets here, making them the
weapons of choice for gangs, all of this in violation of our law, but
we again looked the other way or pulled the plug on the investigation
too soon.
I want to call to my colleagues' attention a photograph that we have
not had on the floor in a long time, because, frankly, I think it is
too sacred to bring before this body, which has over and over again
rejected our appeals for a change in U.S.-China policy because of
repression in China and Tibet.
But, Mr. Taylor, respecting and admiring your dissatisfaction with
what is going on here too, because, frankly, I am dissatisfied too, it
is a cluster of fig leafs that we are dealing with, but they have more
to them than that. As one who has been critical of fig leaf approaches
here, I do commend our colleagues for the thoughtful attention they
have paid and the reasonable solutions they have come up with so they
can get almost unanimous support in this body for these initiatives.
But the gentleman is right. I had the bill on this floor that would
limit MFN, revoke MFN for products made by the People's Liberation
Army. That is what we should be doing here today. We do not have the
votes for it, the President will not sign it, it would not pass in the
Senate probably, and that, I think, is the least we can do.
But I bring this photograph back today in hope that the gentleman
from California [Mr. Cox] and the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs.
Fowler] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and so many
others who have worked on this package, that we can be serious about
what we are doing and this is not perfunctory.
This is the photograph of the lone man before the tank. We all
identified with him and admired him, and we immediately forgot the
cause that he was standing there for. But I bring it here today in
discussion of the People's Liberation Army, because this is the
People's Liberation Army. They rolled out the tanks against their own
people in the streets of Beijing on June 3 and 4 of 1989.
Fast forwarding to the present, this is the same People's Liberation
Army that, according to the Office of Naval Intelligence in a March
1997 report, an unclassified report, stated that discoveries after the
Gulf War clearly indicate that Iraq maintained an aggressive weapons of
mass destruction procurement program. A similar situation exists today
in Iran with a steady flow of materials and technologies from China to
Iran. This exchange is one of the most active weapons of mass
destruction programs in the Third World and is taking place in a region
of great strategic interest to the United States. It is in our
strategic interest to stop the proliferation by the Chinese military,
the People's Liberation Army, of these weapons of mass destruction to
Iran.
Between June of 1989, and we can go back further than that, but just
taking from then to the present, and now, the Chinese military has been
engaged in the activities that many of us have described relating to
Taiwan, Tibet, China itself, proliferation, et cetera.
They are the guardians of China's repressive dictatorial regime. They
and the People's Armed Police, which are part of the military, stand
guard atop the watch towers of the laogai, the Chinese gulag, and are
executioners of prisoners, some of them for harvest of their organs for
profit.
The People's Liberation Army acts with swift brutality, as evidenced
in Tiananmen Square as we see here, to crush any attempt to introduce
democracy or promote basic human rights in China.
Indeed, when President Jiang, the leader of that military, who got a
21-gun salute from our administration by the military of this
repressive regime, when he was here, he rejected the notion of economic
reform leading to political reform and stated that political conformity
and economic reform are complementary to each other. I was trying to
get his exact words. He rejected the notion of people's evolution, and
yet this administration and many in this body continue to say that that
is what is happening in China.
Recently, huge worker demonstrations in Sichuan Province were
brutally repressed by the People's Armed Police. Workers, believers,
intellectuals, and students are rounded up and confined to reeducation
camps in a continuing attempt by the Chinese authorities to break their
spirit and prevent the establishment of independent organizations.
But this is why the legislation of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs.
Fowler] is so necessary. Chinese military-owned companies are selling
huge amounts of goods in the United States, including toys, exercise
weights, camping tents, and fish for fast food restaurants. Among
American companies that buy products from wholesalers or distributors
who get goods from them, I will invite my colleagues to read the
People's Liberation Army, where to find PLA companies in the United
States, what products they sell, and who are the PLA's customers.
I think my colleagues would find this very informational and a
compelling reason to support the legislation of the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Fowler]. I thank the gentlewoman for presenting it.
{time} 1630
Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Pelosi] for her support and her diligent work in this effort.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], the
chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.
Mr. COX of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the author of this
bill, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], for her courage in
bringing it to the floor, and for her hard work and making sure that 90
days from its passage, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the FBI and
the Department of Justice will combine their resources to produce a
list of People's Liberation Army fronts doing business in the United
States.
The reason we are here is because we love the peoples of China, and
we know the difference between the Communist government in Beijing and
the people. We know that the people are not the
[[Page H10210]]
regime. We also know that free enterprise is not communism and
communism is not free enterprise, and we know that the People's
Liberation Army, the largest standing military on Earth, is not a
commercial enterprise. And those of us who are for free trade
understand that free trade must take place between commercial actors,
market forces, driven by a profit motive, and competition is what makes
markets work.
The People's Liberation Army is not interested in that. The People's
Liberation Army has very different aims, and we understand what armies
are all about.
The money that is generated from the subsidized industries in which
the People's Liberation Army is engaged as so-called profits provide
off-budget financing for the People's Liberation Army to expand even
more than it already has. In nominal terms, that is what they report,
the People's Liberation Army has doubled its spending since the
collapse of the Soviet empire. They have literally moved to fill the
void created by the collapse of the Soviet Union militarily. But the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency tells us that that is understated
by a factor of probably 8 times. The People's Liberation Army is
enormous, but it is also growing, and it is growing because of these
rather unique and creative financial arrangements.
A good example of these financial arrangements is Poly Technologies,
about which we have heard some in the course of this debate. Poly
Technologies, Inc., which is engaged in everything from the sale of
small arms to the latest weapons of mass destruction in the People's
Liberation Army arsenal has as its chairman a PLA officer. Bao Ping is
none other than Deng Xiaoping's son-in-law.
This People's Liberation Army organization, using, for example, $2.5
billion that it earned in a single Middle East arms transaction, those
were its net profits in that one deal, occupies almost one full city
block near Beijing's Forbidden City. Poly Plaza comprises two large
gleaming white marble towers connected by a 4-story high exhibition
hall and theater. Across the face of the building in gold letters in
English and Chinese characters, it says, Poly Plaza. They own property
all over the People's Republic of China. Luxury villas in Beijing and a
large piece of the Shanghai Securities Exchange building.
They also have commercial interests in California, where they were
arrested for trying to smuggle into our country 300,000 machine guns
for sale to street gangs. This is the indictment. They happen to be
caught because there was an FBI sting operation, and in fact, a PLA
agent offered to sell the FBI officers engaged in the sting operation
Red Parakeet missiles, like Stinger missiles, the Chinese call theirs
Red Parakeets, which he boasted, and it is written out here in the
indictment, could take a 747 out of the sky. That is the kind of
enterprise that the People's Liberation Army conducts.
Fortune Magazine, as has been alluded to earlier in the debate,
reports that profits from People's Liberation Army's so-called
commercial enterprise, the PLA fronts, yield about $2 billion to $3
billion in hard currency off-budget financing for the People's
Liberation Army. The People's Liberation Army, more than anything, is
the instrument of internal repression in the People's Republic of
China. We ought not to pretend that when they are using their
commercial fronts to do business in the United States that it looks
anything like free trade. It is not.
What this bill does is very modest. It will produce a list and it
will produce it in relatively short order so that we can then know who
we are dealing with. That kind of information the American people need;
that kind of information this bill will provide, and I congratulate the
gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding once
again and commend her for her leadership.
I wanted to join the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], and I did
not have enough time to finish when I was enumerating all the kinds of
products that the Chinese People's Liberation Army sells in the United
States.
The point is that the point that the gentleman from California [Mr.
Cox] made, and that is that this subsidizes the Chinese military
apparatus, the same one that brutally occupies Tibet, sells weapons of
mass destruction into the Third World. The toys you buy in the United
States from Poly Technologies and the rest subsidize the Chinese
military.
Mr. HAMILTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, let me begin by agreeing
with everything the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] just said. All
of those things really did happen. The company that shipped that
container-load of AK-47's into our country is the Chinese Ocean
Shipping Co. We on the Committee on National Security this year passed
an amendment which would ban that company, or any state-owned shipping
company, from leasing or operating an American port that used to be a
military installation that has reverted back to a local community.
Unfortunately, the Senators chose not to do so, and it was dropped out
of the conference committee report.
I want to go back to some things that were said earlier, that this
bill is great because we authorize the President to do some things. One
of the things we are as Members of Congress expected to do is read the
Constitution of the United States, and any Member who reads the
Constitution of the United States knows that in section 1 it talks
about the powers of the Members of Congress. One of those powers will
be debated twice today, because it involves Article I, section 8,
clause 3 of the Constitution, which clearly gives Congress, and I am
quoting, ``the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.''
What the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] is trying to do here
is to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and I have no problem
with that because she is trying to slap the Chinese for their wrongful
deeds. The problem with it is we should be doing it and we should not
be delegating our constitutionally mandated authority to the President.
We know they have done bad things. We know that they have tried to
smuggle a container, a 40-foot container load of AK-47's into this
country to sell to street gangs in this country and cause harm in this
country. Let us not pretend that that is not going on. And let us not
pretend that these measures that have absolutely no force at all are
going to do anything about it.
I am going to say for the last time, if this Congress is serious
about getting the Chinese' attention for their wrongful deeds, we have
to hit them in the pocketbook. They have unlimited access to the
American market in most favored nation status which a majority of
Members in this body, but not me, voted for, which allows them to have
market access for 2 percent. They charge American goods anywhere up to
40 percent.
We have had two separate options, two separate opportunities to level
the playing field. The sponsor of this bill did not vote to do so. I
hope this Congress in the next session will address that. Because if we
really think that the Chinese are doing wrong things and we really want
to address it, there is a means to do so. It is called trade fairness.
It is called basic fairness for the American working people.
I hope just once the Committee on Ways and Means will allow the
Members of this body to vote on something that will call for fairness
in trade between ourselves and the People's Republic of China.
____________________